Growth and photosynthetic traits differ between shoots originated from axillary buds or from adventitious buds in <i>Populus balsamifera</i> L. cuttings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Bud development influences shoot branching and the plasticity and adaptability of plants. To explore the differences of post‐embryonic development of different types of buds, shoots originated from adventitious buds and axillary buds of cuttings in two populations of balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera L.) were investigated for differences in leaf morphology, photosynthetic and growth characteristics, and the effects of a carbonic anhydrase (CA) inhibitor on CA activity, photosynthesis and mesophyll conductance (gm). The results showed that axillary buds produced ovate first few leaves and longer shoots while adventitious buds produced lanceolate first few leaves with higher specific leaf area (SLA). There were no significant differences in leaf area‐based photosynthetic rate (An), maximum carboxylation rate (Vcmax), and maximum electron transport rate (Jmax) between shoots originated from the two bud types. Based on the principal component analysis, shoots of adventitious bud origin grouped on daytime respiration and SLA, while cuttings from axillary buds clustered toward the opposite direction of quantum yield and light saturation point. Shoots originated from different types of buds had different growth rates and biomass, but the direction of the differences varied with the population of the mother tree. The two populations differed in An, gm, and relationships between CA, An, and gm. There were differences in post‐embryonic growth traits of shoots from axillary buds and those from adventitious buds, which may be an adaptive strategy for regeneration under different light conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".